STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. SHAWN MICHAEL BENTLER, Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-707 / 07-1187
Filed October 29, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHAWN MICHAEL BENTLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Van Buren County, Michael R.
Mullins, Judge.
Defendant appeals from judgment and sentence entered upon his
convictions of first-degree murder. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, H. Craig Miller, County Attorney, and Scott Brown, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Miller, JJ.
2
MAHAN, J.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, convicted Shawn Bentler of five
counts of first-degree murder.
Bentler appeals, contending his Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated
when the district court allowed into evidence a pair of socks transferred to Iowa
law enforcement after those socks had been seized by Illinois law enforcement
pursuant to a lawful custodial arrest. We affirm.
I. Background Facts.
At 3:38 a.m. on October 14, 2006, a 911 call was made from the landline
of Sandra and Mike Bentler. The recording of that 911 call establishes that a
person identified as Shayne Bentler tells the operator that her mother told her to
call and that “[m]y brother‟s gonna do something, I don‟t know what . . . . My
mom‟s yelling at him, saying „Shawn, don‟t.‟” A woman‟s voice can be heard in
the background screaming, “Please don‟t! Please Shawn don‟t!”
There is a
popping sound. Seconds later, Shayne screams, “Shawn, no!” and the line goes
dead.
While the 911 operator was speaking with Shayne, a second call came in
to the 911 system. After the call from Shayne ended, the 911 operator attempted
to switch over to the other call, but there was no caller on the line. The operator
called the number of the unanswered call and got Shelby Bentler‟s voice mail.
The number was for a cellular telephone registered to Sandra Bentler. The 911
operator then called the Bentler house and got no answer.
At 3:55 a.m. law enforcement arrived at the Bentler home. When the
house was searched, the bodies of defendant‟s mother, Sandra; defendant‟s
3
father, Michael; and defendant‟s three sisters, Sheena, Shelby and Shayne, were
found.
Michael‟s body was found in the doorway to the master bedroom.
Sandra‟s body was found at the top of the stairs. Shayne‟s body was found in a
closet with parts of the telephone receiver around her and the imprint of the
telephone on her face. She had been shot through the head with a .22 caliber
rifle, as had the four other Bentler family members. Shelby‟s body was also
found in a closet, with a cellular phone near her body. Sheena‟s body was found
on her bed in a lower level of the house.
Shawn Bentler‟s cellular phone was found at the family residence. A call
had been placed from this phone to a friend of Shawn‟s at 12:09 a.m. on
October 14. Shawn, the only remaining living member of the Bentler family, lived
in Quincy, Illinois, a one-hour-twenty-minute drive from the Bentler house.
Iowa law enforcement contacted Quincy law enforcement and asked that
Shawn Bentler be placed under surveillance. Bentler left his residence around
10:00 a.m. on October 14 on his motorcycle and, at about 10:20 a.m., was
stopped by Quincy police for driving without a valid license and on an
outstanding arrest warrant. Bentler was taken into custody. Quincy officers did
not tell him about the murder of his family in Iowa.
Iowa law enforcement officers traveled to Quincy to interview Bentler.
After Bentler was interviewed, and pursuant to Quincy jail booking procedures,
he was strip-searched and given jail attire.
His street clothing and personal
effects were seized and placed in four paper bags, which were stapled shut with
identifying information on the exterior of the bags.
At about 9:30 p.m. on
October 14, the bags were given to Iowa Department of Criminal Investigation
4
(DCI) agent Rick John who, at about 10:20 p.m., placed them in the backseat of
a car driven by DCI agent Darrell Simmons to be taken to the Van Buren County
Sheriff‟s office.
On October 15, 2006, charges were filed in Iowa accusing Shawn Bentler
of the murder of his family members. Arrest warrants were issued and served on
Bentler in Illinois.
Bentler waived extradition, and the Quincy jail transferred
custody of Bentler to Iowa law enforcement officials. Bentler was transported to
the Van Buren County jail.
On October 16 John discovered Simmons still had possession of the bags
containing Bentler‟s personal effects because the investigation had kept
Simmons from going to the sheriff‟s office. John reclaimed possession of the
paper bags and delivered them to the Van Buren County Sheriff‟s office. On
October 18 the bags containing Bentler‟s clothing and personal effects were
placed into the evidence closet of the Iowa jail.1 The only key to the locked
evidence closet was in agent Richard Rahn‟s possession.
Some time later, agent Rahn entered the evidence closet and opened the
paper bags. He saw what he thought might be blood on the socks worn by
Bentler at the time of his arrest.
Rahn contacted the county attorney, who
advised Rahn to obtain a search warrant before any further search of the items.
On October 24 an application for search warrant was drafted by a DCI
agent other than Rahn. The application sought to search the items in the bags
as “[p]roperty relevant and material as evidence in a criminal prosecution.” The
affidavit in support of the application set forth, among other things, the facts
1
Bentler does not here challenge the chain of custody.
5
surrounding the 911 telephone calls; the arrest of Shawn Bentler in Quincy,
Illinois; the seizure of his personal effects and clothing at the time of his booking;
the fact that when Bentler was interviewed on October 14 he told interviewers
that his water was shut off at his residence in Quincy; and
[b]ased upon my experience as a Special Agent, DNA, blood, hair,
fibers and other trace evidence can easily be transferred from the
body of a person onto his clothing. This is compounded when there
is no water in the residence to clean up with after a crime has been
committed.
Based upon my experience, it is common for evidence;
ie . . . DNA, blood, hair, fibers and other trace evidence to be left at
the crime scene by the suspect while in commission of the crime. It
is also common for DNA, blood, hair, fibers and other trace
evidence from the victim(s) to transfer onto the suspect or the
suspect‟s clothing while a crime is being committed.
No mention was made in the affidavit of Rahn opening the bags or his
observations.
A search warrant was issued on October 25, 2006. Subsequent testing of
the socks in the evidence bag determined that the stains on the socks worn by
Bentler on the day of his arrest contained blood matching the DNA of Sandra
Bentler.
Bentler filed a motion to suppress the clothing and any evidence derived
from the clothing contending, among other things, that the initial seizure by Iowa
law enforcement agents on October 14, 2006, was unreasonable and without
probable cause and therefore illegal under the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. He
also contended the October 25, 2006 search warrant was constitutionally
defective.
Following a hearing, the district court concluded:
6
Although Agent Rahn might have been within his legal
authority to examine the contents of the paper bags prior to the
issuance of a search warrant, this Court need not decide that issue.
The search warrant was obtained lawfully, approved by a judge
whose analysis of the probable cause for issuance of the search
warrant was exclusive of any knowledge of the examination of the
clothing conducted by Agent Rahn. The judge was not even made
aware of the fact that an examination had occurred. Accordingly,
the evidence obtained from the clothing was obtained legally. The
legality of the search is not tainted under the Fourth Amendment by
Agent Rahn having previously examined the clothing. Accordingly,
Defendant‟s Motion to Suppress the search and seizure of his
clothing should be overruled.
Bentler was subsequently convicted of five counts of first-degree murder
and now appeals.
Bentler does not challenge the seizure of his clothing by Illinois law
enforcement. See Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 645-46, 103 S. Ct. 2605,
2609-10, 77 L. Ed. 2d 65, 71 (1983) (upholding inventory search of arrestee‟s
personal effects under routine booking procedure); United States v. Edwards,
415 U.S. 800, 804, 94 S. Ct. 1234, 1237, 39 L. Ed. 2d 771, 776 (1974) (“Nor is
there any doubt that clothing or other belongings may be seized upon arrival of
the accused at the place of detention and later subjected to laboratory analysis or
that the test results are admissible at trial.”).
Rather, Bentler claims Iowa law enforcement illegally seized his property
from Illinois law enforcement.
II. Standard of Review.
Bentler raises a constitutional challenge to the seizure and search of his
clothing. Our review of constitutional issues is de novo. State v. McGrane, 733
N.W.2d 671, 675 (Iowa 2007).
Our court independently evaluates the
defendant‟s claim under the totality of the circumstances. Id. The scope and
7
purpose of the search and seizure clause of article I, section 8 of the Iowa
Constitution is coextensive with the federal court‟s interpretation of the Fourth
Amendment. State v. Carter, 733 N.W.2d 333, 337 (Iowa 2007).
III. Merits.
We
engage
in
a
two-step
analysis
to
determine
whether
an
unconstitutional search and seizure, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, was
conducted. First, the defendant must show he had a legitimate expectation of
privacy in the area searched. State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 342 (Iowa
1995). “The determination of whether a person has a legitimate expectation of
privacy with respect to a certain area is made on a case-by-case basis,
considering the unique facts of each particular situation.” State v. Breuer, 577
N.W.2d 41, 45 (Iowa 1998). Moreover, the expectation of privacy must be one
that society considers reasonable, an issue that involves reference to
understandings that are recognized and permitted by society. State v. Ortiz, 618
N.W.2d 556, 559 (Iowa 2000).
Second, if the defendant had a legitimate
expectation of privacy, we must then determine whether the State unreasonably
invaded the protected interest. Id.
Bentler argues that he had a reasonable, albeit limited, expectation of
privacy in his items after they were seized by Illinois officials, which would
prohibit the transfer of his property to others without a warrant. We disagree.
We note that most courts deciding this issue under the Fourth Amendment
conclude that once an inmate‟s property is taken and inventoried and placed in a
property room, the inmate‟s expectation of privacy is substantially or entirely
reduced to the point that no constitutionally protectable interest remains. See,
8
e.g., United States v. Turner, 28 F.3d 981, 983 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied 513
U.S. 1158, 115 S. Ct. 1117, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1995) (finding cap was properly
seized from defendant and thus could be removed without a warrant, since it
remained in the “legitimate uninterrupted possession of the police.”); United
States v. Thompson, 837 F.2d 673, 675 (5th Cir.), cert denied, 488 U.S. 832, 109
S. Ct. 89, 102 L. Ed. 2d 65 (1988) (permitting a federal agent‟s second look at
items taken by state police pursuant to a valid arrest on state charges as the
defendant could not reasonably expect a right to privacy in the serial numbers of
his personal money stored in police custody); United States v. Jenkins, 496 F.2d
57, 73 (2d Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 925, 95 S. Ct. 1119, 43 L. Ed. 2d
394 (1975) (holding that where New Jersey authorities had arrested defendant
for carrying a concealed weapon, the subsequent inspection by a federal agent
of money taken from defendant and held for safekeeping did not require a
warrant); State v. Copridge, 918 P.2d 1247, 1251 (Kan. 1996) (holding that
where defendant is taken into custody and defendant‟s effects are lawfully seized
and retained for safekeeping, the defendant has no expectation of privacy and
officers may thereafter take a “second look” at the inventoried personal effects
without a search warrant and remove any evidence); see also Wallace v. State,
816 A.2d 883 (Md. 2003), and cases cited therein.
In United States v. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d 518, 523 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 439
U.S. 926, 99 S. Ct. 310, 58 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1978), the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld a warrantless seizure of jailed suspects‟ shoes some six weeks
after arrest where both defendants and their shoes remained in lawful custody
until the time when the shoes were taken for use as evidence. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d
9
at 524. The court noted: “Both the defendants and their shoes remained in lawful
custody until the time when the shoes were taken for use as evidence.
To
require a warrant under these circumstances would be to require a useless and
meaningless formality.”
Based upon all the foregoing, we conclude Bentler had no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the property seized upon his booking. “Indeed, it is
difficult to perceive what is unreasonable about the police‟s examining and
holding as evidence those personal effects of the accused that they already have
in their lawful custody as a result of a lawful arrest.” Edwards, 415 U.S. at 806,
94 S. Ct. at 1238, 39 L. Ed. 2d at 777.
We also conclude Bentler did not have a legitimate privacy interest in his
personal effects after they had been lawfully seized by Illinois law enforcement
and validly transferred to Iowa law enforcement. Evidence legally obtained by
one law enforcement agency may be made available to another law enforcement
agency without a warrant. Oaxaca, 569 F.2d at 523 (holding that once clothes
were properly in custody of sheriff‟s office, the clothing could be removed or
transferred without benefit of official process); United States v. Lewis, 504 F.2d
92, 104 (6th Cir. 1974), cert. denied 421 U.S. 975, 95 S. Ct. 1974, 44 L. Ed. 2d
466 (1975) (allowing evidence in federal trial obtained without a warrant from
state police officers after use in state court); see also Turner, 28 F.3d at 983
(finding cap properly seized upon arrest on state charges could be removed from
county jail by federal postal inspector without a warrant). Consequently, we find
that Iowa law enforcement had no duty to obtain a warrant before viewing the
10
items legally seized in Illinois and transferred from Illinois to Iowa law
enforcement.
Because we conclude Bentler did not have a reasonable expectation of
privacy concerning the items taken upon his booking, we need not determine
whether the State unreasonably invaded a legitimate privacy interest. However,
we agree with the district court that the warrant issued on October 25, 2006, was
supported by probable cause. See State v. Naujoks, 637 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Iowa
2001) (noting that the standard for probable cause is whether a person of
reasonable prudence would believe “evidence of a crime might be located in the
particular area to be searched”). Therefore, the search of Bentler‟s personal
effects worn at the time of his arrest pursuant to that warrant was constitutionally
permissible.
Bentler has argued that if we find his trial counsel did not preserve his
constitutional challenge, such failure constituted ineffective assistance of
counsel. Our resolution of his challenge moots this claim.
IV. Conclusion.
We hold Bentler had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his personal
effects properly seized by Illinois law enforcement pursuant to standard booking
procedures and transferred to Iowa law enforcement. The subsequent search of
those items pursuant to a search warrant did not violate Bentler‟s Fourth
Amendment rights. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
